Volume 7 : Issue 2 (2020)

A Grade Seven Science Teacher’s Discursive Interactions in Developing Common Knowledge: Question Types, Discourse Patterns, and Communicative Approaches

The purpose of this research is to characterize the nature of discourse between a middle school science teacher and her students as the teacher develops the physics concepts of “forms and transformation of energy” using a standards-based curriculum that promotes “dialogic discourse.” The whole-class discussions between the teacher and her students are video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Four instructional activities are analyzed using a discourse framework based on the consistency of students’ completion of workbook lessons and references made by the teacher to these lessons as she developed common knowledge on the concepts of forms and transformation of energy. The teacher-posed questions portrayed the following characteristics: cued, second-order, descriptive, and explanatory. There are straightforward and a combination of discourse patterns based on the moves in the same lesson at various points. The communicative approach is predominantly interactive/authoritative where the teacher leads students with the aim of establishing the correct answer. The study implies the need for professional development on teacher-students’ interactive/dialogic discourse that fosters common knowledge development in science.

dialogic discourse, sociocultural perspective, common knowledge.

Achieve (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students' questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193. Ahtee, M., Juuti, K. Lavonen, J. & Suomela, L. (2011) Questions asked by primary student teachers about observations of a science emonstration, European Journal of Teacher Education 34:3, 347-361, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2011.565742 Alexander, R. J. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7-33. Alexander, R. J. (2006, 3rd Ed.). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. University of Cambridge: Dialogos. Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: conceptualizing a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40 (15), 1891-1912. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765. Chen, YC., Hand, B. & Norton-Meier, L. Res Sci Educ (2017). Teacher Roles of Questioning in Early Elementary Science Classrooms: A Framework Promoting Student Cognitive Complexities in Argumentation 47: 373 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9506-6 Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521-549. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark. V. L. (2017 3rd. Ed.). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: Sage Publications, Inc. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). 1.1 Learning in Science-From Behaviourism Towards Social Constructivism and Beyond. Ebenezer, J., Chacko, S., Kaya, O. N., Koya, S. K., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2010). The effects of common knowledge construction model sequence of lessons on science achievement and relational conceptual change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 25-46. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in theapplication of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science education, 88(6), 915-933. Edwards, A. D., & Furlong, V. J. (1978). The language of teaching: Meaning in classroom interaction. Heinemann Educational Books. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (2013). Common Knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York, NY: Routledge Revivals. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987c). Common Knowledge (Routledge Revivals): The Development of Understanding in the Classroom. Routledge. Eshach, H. (2010). An analysis of conceptual flow patterns and structures in the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 451-477. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169. Gay, A. & Duzor, V. (2012) Evidence that Teacher Interactions with Pedagogical Contexts Facilitate Chemistry-Content Learning in K-8 Professional Development, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23:5, 481-502, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-012-9290-3 Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922-939. Huang, Y. & Asghar, A. (2016). Science education reform in Confucian learning cultures: policymakers‘ perspectives on policy and practice in Taiwan. Asian-Pacific Science Education. 3. Kyriacou, C., & Issitt, J. (2008). What characterizes effective teacher-pupil dialogue to promote conceptual understanding in mathematics lessons in England in Key Stages 2 and 3. EPPI-centre report no. 1604R. Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2002). Teaching science in elementary and middle school classrooms: Aproject based approach. (2nd Ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project - based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32. Krajcik, J., Reiser, B. J., Fortus, D., & Sutherland, L. (2008). Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor, MI: Regents of the University of Michigan. Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456-459. Lai, C., Li, Z. & Gong, Y. (2016). Teacher agency and professional learning in cross-cultural teaching contexts: accounts of Chinese teachers from international schools in Hong Kong. Teacher and Teacher Education, Vol. 54, 12-21. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2011). Introducing dialogic teaching to science student teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(8), 705-727. Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Moate, J., & Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher-led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912-939. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York, NY: Routledge, Imprint of Taylor & Francis Group. Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human development, 51(1), 90-100. Mercer, N. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In Argumentation and education. In N. M. Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education (pp. 177–194). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12-21. Michaels, S., & O‘Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC. Mishler, E. G. (1975). Studies in dialogue and discourse: II. Types of discourse initiated by and sustained through questioning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4(2), 99-121. Montenegro, H. (2017). Teaching as a discoursive practice: new perspectives for teacher education. Spain: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In, R. Millar, J. Leach and J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research, pp.126–142. Buckingham: Open University Press. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International. Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. (2005). Questioning learning. Language and Education, 19, 415-427. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Polman, J. L. (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 431-466. Prawat, R. S. (1993). The value of ideas: Problems versus possibilities in learning. Educational Researcher, 22(6), 5-16. Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: striking a balance between =opening up'and =closing down' classroom talk. School science review, 88(324), 77. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605-631. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 199-219. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-178. Toulmin‘s (2003 Viiri, J., & Saari, H. (2006). Teacher talk patterns in science lessons. Use in teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 347-365. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (2008). The conceptual change approach and the teaching of science. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (pp. 619 - 628). New York: Routledge. Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2006). Accountable talk in reading comprehension instruction (CSE Technical Report 670). Los Angeles : National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.